Sorry, but you are misinformed. It is you who cherry pick datato support your beliefs. There have been hundreds of wide-scalestudies done it the last 5 years showing the life-long health benefits of circumcision:

The evidence for the long-term public health benefits of male circumcision has increased substantially during the past 5 years. If a vaccine were available that reduced HIV risk by 60%, genital herpes risk by 30%, and HR-HPV risk by 35%, the medical community would rally behind the immunization and it would be promoted as a game-changing public health intervention.

As for the ethics of circumcision, parents make decisionsfor their children all the time without consent. Whether or notto vaccinate, what school, what religion all can have a profoundeffect on child "without their consent".

What a mammoth feast of the circumcision this article makes.What is next off the block for another article - a lengthy treatise on the impropriety of trimming fingernails in the absence of parental consent?

Posted by colinsett, Monday, 16 January 2012 6:25:31 AM

It is Jon888 and his citations who cherrypick. Ronald Gray's output has had circumcision as its focus, not any particular disease. Circs.org is the website of a devoted circumcision advocate and the Benetars' article is a wealth of special pleading.

All of them are victims of the "circumcised mindset" - that a genital organ with part missing is "normal" and that the surgical operation to remove that part is not subject to the ethics that restrict other surgery to the medically necessary and/or to those who have given their informed consent.

A decision to cut a normal, healthy, integral, functional, non-renewing part off a baby is not like other "decisions that parents make for children all the time".

We should certainly hesitate to take a vaccine that offered only 60% protection against this and 30% against that. The vaccines that we give children offer strong protection against deadly, contagious diseases of children, not debatable, slight reductions in rare diseases of late onset that can be better prevented or treated by other means.

Posted by Hugh Intactive, Monday, 16 January 2012 6:50:47 AM

Hugh, I don't think you're making a lot of sense.

If 500 studies aren't enough to conclusively show the health benefitsof circumcision, how many would it take?

The Cochrane Institute of Systemic Studies has said that the Africanstudies showing the reduced risk of HIV are conclusive.

Based on those studies, mass circumcisions have been carried outand the results are even better than the studies showed.Still not good enough for you, huh?

Instead of trying to suggest that the pro-circ websites need to beignored, why don't you respond to what they're saying?

Did the Benatar's say something that didn't make sense? Point outwhat's wrong with what they said. Being philosophers, I think theywould welcome the feedback.

Yes, circumcision is like other decisions. Good parents want todo what's best for their children. Parents should be provided withthe best scientific information available and not the emotionalnon-sense (without evidence) that the anti-circs have to offer.

Why would you hesitate to take a vaccine that offered 60% protection?The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective. Nor are many vaccines.

Posted by Jon888, Monday, 16 January 2012 7:03:03 AM

Comparing genital surgery to trimming fingernails is ludicrous.

The "life-long health benefits of circumcision" are controversial to say the least. It's very easy to find circumcised doctors who are against circumcision, but almost impossible to find a male doctor in favor who wasn't circumcised himself as a child.

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.""After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

Royal Australasian College of Physicianshttp://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E"In the absence of evidence of risk of substantial harm, informed parental choice should be respected. Informed parental consent should include the possibility that the ethical principle of autonomy may be better fulfilled by deferring the circumcision to adolescence with the young man consenting on his own behalf."(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)

The Royal Dutch Medical Associationhttp://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."

Everyone should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they have parts of their genitals removed. It's *their* body.

Posted by ml66uk, Monday, 16 January 2012 7:16:43 AM

Why do you think the life-long health benefits of circumcisionare controversial? The evidence is overwhelming exceptfor those who have a bias against circumcision.

What evidence do you have that only maledoctors circumcised as children are for circumcision?

Even Dr. Wiswell was against circumcision and didn't have hisson circumcised. But after seeing that circumcised babies didn'tget as many URI's he came out in favor of circumcision. I don'tknow if he's circumcised or not. Do you?